Roddick couldn't get favors in his old years, but when he needed favors in his desperate time, he got it.
If fraud hadn't existed, Dick wouldn't celebrate with his failed tennis player brother in the '07 Davis Cup ties.
Belgium was left in pain when Patrick McEnroe saw how bad Roddick played in their Davis Cup match. McEnroe the captain told the umpire that the lineswoman called Rochus shot out. The umpire agreed with fraud Pat,
It obviously was good from Rochus, so that robbed Belgium.
Pat apologized for being wrong the next tournament's broadcast and Dick shut his mouth, uncharacteristically.

He came very close to being Roger's ostrich. Ferrer is still pretty far from that.

Because Andy's played him more, obviously. Do you think Ferrer could improve on his record with Fed if he were given ten more matches? It's doubtful.

The thing people sometimes overlook when considering Andy's record is that most players had a crap awful record against Primerer. The only difference is that Roddick made it to him more. It says something that Miami of this year was the only time they met before a QF.

And consider how he stacked up against Fed in major finals: Agassi, Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, and Murray have managed to take a grand total of 2 sets in 7 major finals against Federer; Roddick took 4 sets in 4 finals. Only Nadal and Del Po have had better results against Roger in major finals. How many games would Ferrer even manage?

This. The only embarrassment here is how Ferrer ever BSed his way to the world's top 5.

have to disagree with you here

ferrer has been consistent across grand slams, won 7 titles this year, and has the most wins after the world no 1 djokovic, this year. if nadal hadn't been so good on the clay, he would be no 4, and deservedly so

you should focus on someone like berdych reaching the top 5 (briefly), because he's done bugger all for 7 out of the last 8 years

if you wanna moan about vultures, talk about tipsarevic or monaco

i prefer del potro to ferrer as you well know, but ferrer has been far and away the better player between the two this year

you should focus on someone like berdych reaching the top 5 (briefly), because he's done bugger all for 7 out of the last 8 years

Berdych's upside is much better, though. Ferrer trounces him in terms of consistency, but it's like comparing a consistent 10 to a high-low ace. The latter reaching the top five is considerable, even if it's only for a short while.

Because Andy's played him more, obviously. Do you think Ferrer could improve on his record with Fed if he were given ten more matches? It's doubtful.

The thing people sometimes overlook when considering Andy's record is that most players had a crap awful record against Primerer. The only difference is that Roddick made it to him more. It says something that Miami of this year was the only time they met before a QF.

And consider how he stacked up against Fed in major finals: Agassi, Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, and Murray have managed to take a grand total of 2 sets in 7 major finals against Federer; Roddick took 4 sets in 4 finals. Only Nadal and Del Po have had better results against Roger in major finals. How many games would Ferrer even manage?

ferrer has been consistent across grand slams, won 7 titles this year, and has the most wins after the world no 1 djokovic, this year. if nadal hadn't been so good on the clay, he would be no 4, and deservedly so

you should focus on someone like berdych reaching the top 5 (briefly), because he's done bugger all for 7 out of the last 8 years

if you wanna moan about vultures, talk about tipsarevic or monaco

i prefer del potro to ferrer as you well know, but ferrer has been far and away the better player between the two this year

results don't lie

Berdych has never been ranked in the top 5.

Look at Ferrer's record against the Big 3: Federer's lapdog/slave, Nadal's bitch, Nole's pigeon 2012 is his career year and he still hasn't managed to notch a single victory or win and took a single set against these guys in 8 matches (helped by the wind against Nole in New York), he's a complete non factor in the late stages of big events.

Berdych's upside is much better, though. Ferrer trounces him in terms of consistency, but it's like comparing a consistent 10 to a high-low ace. The latter reaching the top five is considerable, even if it's only for a short while.

ferrer has had the better career

more titles, more finals, higher ranked, better grand slam performance (1 final does not beat several more semis and quarters)

ferrer might not deliver against federer or nadal (on clay), but he beats everyone else. berdych loses to everyone and anyone

berdych deserves credit for treating every match against federer as a slam final

Look at Ferrer's record against the Big 3: Federer's lapdog/slave, Nadal's bitch, Nole's pigeon 2012 is his career year and he still hasn't managed to notch a single victory or win and took a single set against these guys in 8 matches (helped by the wind against Nole in New York), he's a complete non factor in the late stages of big events.

and all the better for tennis, too

anyway, berdych is a factor?

chokes to murray, bends over for nadal, and gets trounced by djokovic

he plays against federer like its a calender year grand slam match, and mugs it up against everyone else

ferrer can at least beat murray on clay, nadal on hard and djokovic indoors

as i said, he's the best performer after the top 4, who else is more deserving as no 5?

more titles, more finals, higher ranked, better grand slam performance (1 final does not beat several more semis and quarters)

ferrer might not deliver against federer or nadal (on clay), but he beats everyone else. berdych loses to everyone and anyone

berdych deserves credit for treating every match against federer as a slam final

that's about it

Except when it really matters (well not at all, v. Federer). Other than Murray on clay and a suspect Nadal at AO, I'm not sure Ferrer's ever beaten one of the big four on a big stage.

I'm not discounting Ferrer's consistency, I'm questioning his upside. He'd never be able to go through two of the big four the way Berdych did at Wimbledon, and I doubt he'd beat one of them on their best surface on a big stage the way Berd just did Fed.

His role in the top five is comparable to that of a gatekeeper. He can shut out the rest, but he hasn't seriously threatened to move upward either.

he plays against federer like its a calender year grand slam match, and mugs it up against everyone else

ferrer can at least beat murray on clay, nadal on hard and djokovic indoors

as i said, he's the best performer after the top 4, who else is more deserving as no 5?

Of course. He is a definite threat to Federer everywhere and to Djokovic on grass (not on hardcourts or clay) and has beaten them back to back in a Slam. Only Nadal truly owns him everywhere. Since you mentioned Murray, he has an even H2H to him and beat him at a Slam.

As for your question, Del Potro of course. He was actually #4 before he unfortunately had to leave the tour to get wrist surgery and very close to overtaking Djokovic for #3. His surgery/long layoff has meant that at the moment he cannot play at that level, the level of the current top 4, but he's still easily the fifth best player in the world.

I guess he could get one or two more sets. If he was in Roddick's shoes ie playing prime Federer, he'd never have taken a single set (or one at most, I guess), Fed needs to play like a complete mug to lose a set to Ferrer - and even when he does, he often ends up winning the set anyway, see their last two WTF matches.

I guess he could get one or two more sets. If he was in Roddick's shoes ie playing prime Federer, he'd never have taken a single set (or one at most, I guess), Fed needs to play like a complete mug to lose a set to Ferrer - and even when he does, he often ends up winning the set anyway, see their last two WTF matches.

Agreed; again looking at the fact that he averaged under five games in most of their matches between 2006-2007...

"Win more games against Roger" is at the top of Ferrer's 2013 wishlist.

Because Andy's played him more, obviously. Do you think Ferrer could improve on his record with Fed if he were given ten more matches? It's doubtful.

The thing people sometimes overlook when considering Andy's record is that most players had a crap awful record against Primerer. The only difference is that Roddick made it to him more. It says something that Miami of this year was the only time they met before a QF.

And consider how he stacked up against Fed in major finals: Agassi, Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, and Murray have managed to take a grand total of 2 sets in 7 major finals against Federer; Roddick took 4 sets in 4 finals. Only Nadal and Del Po have had better results against Roger in major finals. How many games would Ferrer even manage?

If Andy was a walkover for Fed, a guy like Ferrer is a nap time.

Where was the success in failing?
Roddick had no career, not even in Olympics and Davis Cup versus top 10 guys.

Federer fluked in Wimbledon when Djoker was a mess. In '07 US Open, Fed needed a bad choke from Djoker.
Djoker was hitting peak tennis again in late 2010. Federer never took control of the top 4 opponents the last 3 years, and had trouble beating other top 10 players except Roddick & Ferrer, although he'd love to deny it.

From '05 to '06, Roddick & Hewitt were in finals because Djoker was 18 years old and the tour was a joke. Baghdatis & Andreev couldn't handle Slam chances.
None except Nadal & Djoker won multiple Slams.
Ferrer beat almost everyone for 6 years.

Roddick blamed injury despite losing on every surface for 7 years. He was so afraid, he planned to quit tennis then cried for the cameras in the '09 Wimbledon joke "run".

Where was the success in failing?
Roddick had no career, not even in Olympics and Davis Cup versus top 10 guys.

Federer fluked in Wimbledon when Djoker was a mess. In '07 US Open, Fed needed a bad choke from Djoker.
Djoker was hitting peak tennis again in late 2010. Federer never took control of the top 4 opponents the last 3 years, and had trouble beating other top 10 players except Roddick & Ferrer, although he'd love to deny it.

From '05 to '06, Roddick & Hewitt were in finals because Djoker was 18 years old and the tour was a joke. Baghdatis & Andreev couldn't handle Slam chances.
None except Nadal & Djoker won multiple Slams.
Ferrer beat almost everyone for 6 years.

Roddick blamed injury despite losing on every surface for 7 years. He was so afraid, he planned to quit tennis then cried for the cameras in the '09 Wimbledon joke "run".

I tried using Google Translate in hopes of deciphering some of this shit, but apparently they haven't made one for "stupid" yet.